Summary of findings 3. No replacement versus replacement for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy.

No replacement versus replacement for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy
Patient or population: people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy Settings: in hospital Intervention: no replacement versus replacement
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Replacement	No replacement
Pancreatic fistulas	36 per 100	58 per 100 (31 to 100)	RR 1.6 (0.84 to 3.07)	46 (1 study)	⊕⊕ОО LOW1	‐
In‐hospital mortality	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	46 (1 study)	See comment	No events/data
Total hospital stay	The mean total hospital stay in the intervention groups was 16.3 days higher (13.24 to 19.36 higher)		‐	46 (1 study)	⊕⊕ОО LOW1	‐
Delayed gastric emptying	32 per 100	33 per 100 (15 to 77)	RR 1.05 (0.46 to 2.41)	46 (1 study)	⊕⊕ОО LOW1	‐
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

¹Downgraded two levels due to very serious imprecision. Single study with a small sample size and very wide confidence intervals.